is200 Newbie

Thanks Phil I will be taking a look at your post as I have two other cars to do that will need something more than what I used for mine. The T-Cut was worth a try, didn't cost me anything and worked on my car which wasn't too bad but while it has worked on a further two cars, its just not enough to lift the clouding from the plastic on these so I will be looking to use a polishing method (attachment on a grinder).

You have said the knocking is from the front brakes. There is a rubber grommet/washer installed on one of the pins on each or the front calipers. If the wrong type of grease is used then it will react with the rubber grommet over time and it will be impossible to get it back into its housing if taken out and anyone servicing the brakes may leave it out. I actually think its there to prevent knocking. If you reverse and brake and then move forward and brake then I am guessing you get a slight knock - this is more that likely the brake pads showing they have a bit of play in the guides. Its not an issue and just something to expect if using non OEM brake pads. Some don't make the noise, some do.

This subject has been brought up before but I have just cleaned the lights on mine and thought I would share the pics ... I didn't do a before and after picture (just an after !) I was given this t-cut by someone in work to try today so I gave it a go. My headlights were by no means badly stained but were starting to tarnish around the edges, particularly on the top of the lights, so I gave it a go. 5 minutes (if that) was spent on each light and the polish took the stains away - they didn't need a lot of time spent on them, quite a bit of pressure and it was done by hand. they have turned out very well but like I said, they were not badly stained. It was tried on badly stained lights by the guy in work and it didn't work (Ford) but perfect on mine. I will see how long it lasts and might do it every so often just to keep on top of it.

Paint bubbling (Alloy corrosion) on the alloy wheels is common across the models - at least the older IS models (MK1 & 2's) so you are not alone there but once they go there will be a bit of air loss from them as they will eventually corrode to the point where the tyre loses its seal and acts like a slow puncture. It would be advisable to get them refurbed when they get bad as it will save a lot of hassle when they start to give you issue. The paint is bubbling on my wiper arms - I have always planned to take them off / clean up and re-paint but not had the chance to yet. Other issues with the paint I have not experienced at all on the car, a few stone chips but that's through road use. The broken boot catch could be an indication of the gas struts failing if its closing too hard? I don't think the air con failure is a common issue seen by many owners? The sticky dash is a recent issue highlighted by a few owners - see recent posts and apparently its being treated by a recall in some countries. Have never ever seen any indications of rust on the pan on this car but I guess it depends upon where you live (next to coastal area or extreme weather?) Your exhaust has lasted amazingly well - mine went at around 80k miles. This is down to how its driven (not heating up enough so it fails from the inside out due to build up of condensation not being burned off. New ones, custom made, are easy to find at around 4 - 500£'s but make sure you state to have it made as quiet as possible.

Thanks for the replies I think what I am trying to establish (and I think I am there) is that the road is not being maintained and it is not fit for the traffic that's travelling on it - in doing so I can prove "negligence", pretty harsh word but the best one in this instance as the road has been neglected for so long and is in a state. The hole in the picture is one of many - in another stretch of the road at another bad spot there is a good depth of tarmac missing off and on for a few metres and again, this is on a bend in the road. Verges are crumbling and there's evidence heavy lorries use the verges either to stop or to avoid oncoming traffic judging by the tyre tracks on the, what is now mud, on the verge. All the info I have is coming together to suggest this and its becoming quite obvious there's an issue from all the different scenarios I have and the road is not being maintained. For two reasons, its an unclassified road with HGV routing down it with no indication of road markings etc - secondly, there has been a risk report made on the road, its reported on a biannual basis and was done Oct 16 and Apr 17 both reports indicated no issue yet I have evidence that there are issues pre-dating the Oct 16 risk report so it has not been done effectively enough to ensure the road is safe to drive on and/or the risks presented on the road when undergoing the assessment have not been assessed correctly. A pot hole will not necessary need to puncture a tyre to cause anyone to lose control of a car, it will obviously make the situation worse but different scenarios will result in different issues. This one involves a vehicle turning left on a bend in a road, hitting an unexpected hole, over compensating to correct the initial issue trying to avoid one oncoming car and maybe a lack of experience in doing so, ending up hitting the opposite verge and turning the car over. Point here is the initial risk to the user as the pot hole - no indication its there, no indication the road is on a camber, no indication the road is uneven, no indication of hidden access roads (not applicable to the incident but applies in this instance to the oncoming traffic as its on their side of the road) I am trying to prove it is not maintained and hence being a dangerous issue to the road user (who ever is using it) A dashcam would have been so useful but he doesn't have one but will get one now! We have done all the sums last week and pretty much straight away decided the best route would be to scrap the car. We avoided making a claim, excess costs and the hike in future premiums vs' the piddling amount of the insurance he would receive back was not worth is to we informed the insurance and dealt with it ourselves. Recovery, holding and scrappage charges came to £270 ! Paid £900 for the car 3 years ago - worth now as a guestimate £700 with a £250 excess so the likelihood he would have been awarded £200 or so back at the end of the claim and the hike in premium of £200 decreasing over the 5 year notification period so it just was not worth it. The point of the "cheap" car was to build up a no claims "pot" for him so he had a good base to start when he looked for something in the future. As we didn't do down the insurance route there is no hike in premium but there is a record on file that there has been a no blame incident which for now, does not make any difference to the policy. He has just organised another car and this has shown to be the case. The police were there as I guess someone called them but not only that, the accident was on a bad area of the road and the traffic did need to be controlled. I must admit, the police were great during this. There was no charge, cost wise, from the police, no points either as there was no indications of any law being broken (speeding, high, drunk or on phone etc) no 3rd party damage either (to the road or property) and no one needed hospital treatment on the scene I have to agree with Paul above - different circumstances can lead to different issues - the car does look bad in the pictures but the accident wasn't - where the issue would have changed would have been if there was any oncoming traffic involved and that would have changed the situation and would more than likely have been lights out !! The car done its job and he walked away more wiser I guess at having experienced an accident (first one) so its not always a bad thing as it puts into perspective if you get to "comfortable" in driving roads - shows you always need to be concentrating. I guess I will find out this week if they are looking at this in a more serious light - not necessary for the accident but as a minimum to repair the road so it doesn't happen to anyone else.

Definitely a combination of both - speed was not a major factor. The car did not flip at the point of hitting the pot hole but about 10 metres away after hitting the verge and rolled over at the spot or within a couple of metres or so. Very good point - thanks - I never considered that point before regarding drainage - Yes it does have a camber and does have one on quite a long length of the road (both sides) preceding the corner and when it does rain water just runs off into the verge.

Thanks for the comments - no issues at all in the questions - the more the better really -If you can "SAFLEY" get any dimensions/ photo graphs using a school type ruler in photographs it can help evidence your claim. I thought about this but due to the bend in the road its not possible as its too dangerous to take any measurements. If its required it can be done as I have been talking to different parties over this. - The photograph of the verge shows the discolouration in the vegetation on the verge which shows the water/ silt throw so your son is not alone in being on that part of the road..... it depends how big the water collection could have been. I have been down the road after a rain shower (no where near as heavy as the rain on the day of the incident) and the hole was partially filled with water - the picture I have of the hole is some time after the rain stopped on the day - it will be easy enough to establish if it fills to the top and becomes "invisible" to the user as my dashcam has picked up the pot hole on a couple of occasions since when passing it so I can establish it when the good old British weather returns. My only issue is that I have established a time line that it will be filled in by and if the council deem it to be a priority 1 then it will be filled within 10 days. - is there any other road condition..... faint white line/ another pot hole / poor lighting / signage that puts the car more into that side of the road on the corner? There are a few .... on the oncoming side there is an unmarked opening to a farm - not used at the time of the incident though. Oncoming cars will "cut" the centre white line forcing the other side into the verge a bit (what happened on the day) and this is evident on all the bends on the road. The road is not marked at all to indicate the "safe" area, width, of the road to drive upon (the road while locally treated as a main road is actually, I have found out, an unclassified one. There are numerous pot holes / the road is unlit but it was during day time that the incident happened / there are no sufficient signs to establish that the road is either uneven or in a state where the user is warned about its surface - Ask the local police if that road is a particular black spot.... they're not obliged to help..... but you never know. I did ask at the time (I sat in the police car with my lad as he has never had an accident before and got chatting) They would not commit to any thoughts as to what the definite cause could have been but established he was not under the influence of drugs or drink, he wasn't speeding (skid marks and distance travelled from the pot hole and indications of damage to road surface such as scratches in surface etc) - Have a frank chat with him and ensure there are no received or made mobile phone calls texts received or made or social media comments / likes / anything similar at the time...... also anything post the crash....even a bit of bravado about speed or risky driving. I have talked to him about the incident and as it was his first accident, I thought i needed to - he done everything correct, taking pictures etc, I did actually check his phone as I had heard of it being done before to someone in the same circumstances - he made two calls after the incident, both to people who have since mentioned he called to say he had been in an accident and he was safe. There are no media comments at all. Nothing before either. I would not think he would do that anyway and its good to have checked and see he didn't. - while perception & statistically thing are against him as young and male..... if he has clean licence, good insurance history and any maintenance bills for the car......ensure to mention these when relevant as evidence he's not a boy racer. That's the thing - the picture reflects what you would see as a result of losing control when speeding. Its quite easy to establish at the scene what the factors are that led to this and it is more relevant with everything coming together like a perfect storm to initiate the accident. He is 26, clean license but only has 3 years of driving history although he has had his license for longer. Car is maintained, all the relevant components that could have caused the incident were checked by the police and found to be in order. Just an update on this - it has been reviewed by the local council and has been passed to the Insurance and Risk department. I have received the risk report from them which is very poor in its content. The road is reviewed on a 6 monthly basis with the last reviews taking place October 2016 and April 2017 and the report stated no issue. There are a lot of issues on the road that don't stack up to the report but the main one is I have checked Google map images against the road surface and these are date stamped from September 2016 (before the two recent risk assessments) the image shows quite clearly the pothole and all of the other road defects. I have a lot of indications of risk throughout the road so I don't think it has been done effectively. To that point I don't think the claim will be upheld as it will be a bit damming to both the council and the risk assessment company but I will bet you the hole is filled in by next week and just that in itself, isn't that an indication there is a risk there and a good indication of liability?

What I have not shown in the pictures is the fact that the pot hole sits on a bit of a sharp bend (turning left) so the road ahead cant easily be seen

To be honest I am just glad he is in one piece - he only came out of it with a scratch to his elbow which was from crawling through the window (and a hole in his coat !!) I trust him to have been driving sensibly - if anything he is not brilliant with confidence. He was actually at the time of passing the pot hole forced into it a bit from another car on the other side using up his lane and also driving over the centre white lines which is a very common occurrence on this road - he does have a witness which was a couple of cars back but no info on car reg's was taken as it happened too quick and the other car would be out of view as it went round the corner by the time the other driver stopped. The police were not overly concerned about any speeding being involved, no skid marks and the distance he travelled from the pot hole to where he ended up was approx. 15 metres roughly. If he was travelling faster then he would have been a lot further down the road on the roof. Its not possible to speed round that corner on the side he was on as you cannot see what's in front of you but it is on the other side as your line of sight is ok for quite a bit of the road in front of you. It was raining and had been for a while so its possible the pot hole could have been full of water and he did not judge it what with the other car travelling over the lines. So that alone would suggest there could be a claim I would have thought as there are no indications made along the road for either uneven road surface or beware of pot holes (especially in the rain) The road looks quite wide in the pictures but when theres another vehicle, especially a van on it who it trying to avoid the verge on their side and driving over the centre lines then the unfortunate person on the other side has no where to go other than closer to the verge. He was lucky - the picture looks actually worse than the accident as when you consider he was not going that fast the car has taken all the force and done its job in protecting him - cant complain with that. The road is in North Wales between Denbigh and St.Asaph (B5381) and is in a bad way - there is another well maintained one which we will all be using in the future which only adds a few minutes to the commute so in the great scheme of things its nothing really. My issue is: the Highways Act, Section 58 states overall that the road should be up to the use its meant for ... in each of the statements in the section it is not compliant with each. It is a main road between a town and a very busy industrial estate so it carries heavy goods / farm vehicles / HGV / 7.5 tonners and cars. It does not indicate hidden entrances / it does not indicate warnings or cautions for sharp bends / the speed limit for most of the stretch of road is 60mph - this should be 50mph for the heavy goods but countless times I have kept up with these vehicles at 60mph / there are areas of the road with the actual tarmac missing (quite common in the UK unfortunately) / the road has two different cambers for a long stretch which is not indicated with any warning or caution signs. It does however in one area that's no where near a narrow stretch, indicate its a narrow stretch or theres one coming up but at approx. a mile and a bit before it does noticeably get narrower - the road is definitely not suited to the traffic that travels down it and definitely not up to the compliance of giving drivers good warnings. Another issue which can be applied throughout the UK is that when it rains or in winter then the road is covered in mud etc from farm vehicles, yes, its due diligence from drivers to notice this but again theres no indications made to reflect there are hazards. The road is not wide enough sufficiently for two heavy goods passing each other and this is evident at quite a few areas along the stretch of road where they have had to go onto the verge to pass each other - had one on dash cam footage from yesterday doing exactly that when I video'd the road after the accident and it leaves the verge churned up and slowly breaks down the edge of the road which is evident in places. This is what I am arguing with the council (I have a bit more also) - if I only get to the point where they fill the holes and it prevents someone else having an accident then that's my job done but I do also have (on record) a local councillor admitting that its a bad road and its about time something is done with it ??! If they admit liability (we will see) but in doing so my lad can have his incident wiped from his record but to be honest I don't think the will admit any liability. I take on board the comments above but as unfair as it seems to me I have got to go down the route of trying. I think the days are gone where your road tax actually paid to the maintenance of the roads !!!

My lad totalled his car this morning on the way to work – he is quite a responsible driver so I have no concerns over him messing about to be honest. Most important thing is that he came out of it without a single scratch – lucky is not the word.. The cause: raining / windy and pot holes in the road – in particular there is a bad pot hole on quite a sharp bend and it all points to him catching it and losing control ending up hitting the opposite verge and rolling over – not skidding down the road on the roof. Fair to say the cars a writeoff ! and its fair to say that he is very lucky nothing was coming down the opposite side. Does anyone have any experience in pot hole claims as I am sure this is a classic case at the very extreme end of what can happen. I have drafted a letter to the council and also been in touch with the insurance company. Worries are now, he has only been driving for 3 years and is 26yrs old. No claims other than this which will be write off – insurance I imaging will sky rocket !! I have all the pictures and dash cam video from my car driving down the same road today in both directions so I have that all covered but I cannot get out and measure any holes etc as it’s a bad road. The road is not signed sufficiently as well indicating cautions and concealed side roads. I am more looking to see if anyone has any advice on pot hole claims as he has lost his car through no fault of his own really. Below is the picture of the pot hole - does not seem much but in the rain on a sharp bend it seems to have been the cause of the accident

Thanks messi - will give the web site a go She likes shopping ... good point - think I will keep the spare key on my key ring I have the dark leather in my IS and it does not show wear easily and always cleans up well. The couple I were looking at had ivory leather and to be honest it did look a bit tired. Thanks guys - all good points - I will carry on looking cheers

Wife turned to me tonight and said she fancied an SC !! (I had showed her a picture of one a while ago when the prices seemed to be lower and she liked it) She has a Vauxhall convertible at the moment and I have an IS 250. My question is probably one that's been asked before. I know how reliable the Lexus brand is having owned two models over a few years but I don't know about the SC. There are a few on Autotrader and Ebay which I have just looked at to get an idea of prices etc. These are all around 80 - 120k miles. My IS is on 101k and (while not as new) I cant fault it. So my question is, what am I looking for fault wise in an SC around these miles or in general - I know there will be quite a few more moving parts that a saloon as its a convertible - would also be handy to know running costs etc, are parts readily available etc? The ones I have seen are driven on cam belts, is that the case for the whole range? I also like to work on my cars myself as I like to know what is done is good and like to know for sure the right fluids etc go in - is it an easy car to work on? Her annual mileage is usually around 6k and she loves her shopping !!!! so I guess boot space would matter. thanks

In the boot on the right hand side near the amp (if you have one although I think the vent will be there not matter what) there is a vent which I found a while ago. Not sure why its there but mine had a load of muck on it which to me suggested water could get in and out. Check to see if this is blocked or at least wet. Give it a clean eitherway. Not sure if there is another one on the left hand side but worth a look. Another area to check, at least to rule it out, under the driver and passenger seats I am sure there are air ducts from the heating system, check to see if these are wet or dry.

Makes sense and looks like a very easy process (just like bleeding your brakes !!) I never understood why it was claimed that oil changes could not be done on this box - glad I have had it done though but may be of use if the process in the vid can be done on these cars as it could be easier than people think and its definitely a job that needs to be done on a regular interval (100k is too long..) The auto boxes on ours are cooled and the temp is regulated through a sensor mounted on the box itself - the change needs to be done at temp which is one point that was not mentioned in the vid

Had a partial gearbox oil change today. Cant be done in a one step process so its being done over 3 months or when I can fit the time in to get it done. Asked for a sample of oil from the box to compare to the new oil. Car is almost on 101,000 miles and I have no idea if this change has been made at any point in the past (no history either). Sample used oil was in a small jar initially but I put them both into plastic bags to compare better and to see if I could feel any contamination which I couldn't. The smell on the old oil was bad - smelt like old engine oil (a bit burnt). The oil in the picture (coloured red) is the new - the black oil is out of the box. This may very well be a lifetime oil in the box but I would really like to question what the expected lifetime of the car is from the manufacturer as this used oil is very bad and needs changing and at a sooner interval than 100k although this must depend on use The gearbox operation has noticeably changed - smoother gear changes in auto mode but stll a bit noticeable between changes but I expect that to get better over time when the further oil changes have been completed. Will update when the 3rd change has been done. Picture below

This may sound like a daft thing to check against something that seems to point to the rear antenna but I had interference on the radio stations a while back even in areas where I knew there was a strong signal. Not long after that I needed to replace the car battery as it started to fail and once the battery was replaced the interference went away. I didn't do any other work but I did disconnect the heat sensor on the battery box and re-connect it when the battery was fitted. You might want to try two things that wont cost you anything 1. Disconnect the sensor, clean and re-connect it. 2. Disconnect the battery, both terminals, leave for an hour or so, re-connect and then try the radio stations. You will need to reset the windows etc This worked for me but maybe by chance more than anything?

Another MOT passed and the first one with the "home made" exhaust I put on the car. I am just interested to see what emission readings other owners have that still have the OEM exhaust on their car - I don't really understand the sheet that comes with the MOT read out but is as follows: Fast Idle Test CO % vol: Max limit = 0.2 / Actual = 0.14 HC PPM Vol: Max limit = 200 / Actual value = 59 Natural Idle Test CO % Vol: Max limit = 0.3 / Actual Value = 0.16 Is this along the lines of an OEM exhaust?

There are loads of types out there - I bought 20 of the ones recommended by bernieeccles and they are just right, fit perfectly.

Look through the "Owner Recommendations" for the Wurth rubber restorer. I bought this for mine as the boot would stick to the rubber seal - I needed to use it a few times but its got rid of the sticking now. \have used it on my wifes convertible seals and can vouch for it as it seems to work well.

Lexus, at least my closest dealer (Chester) only sell the touch up stick and don't do the aerosol for some reason

If the rubber boots that fit over the pins are working as they should be on the calipers then the pins should not be exposed to any sort of dirt and that includes brake dust. The rubber boots should be tight and flexible and should expand the full range of motion of the pin without popping out of the groove that it sits in. What grease are you using for the pins? If you have had to use grit paper to clean them then if the rubbers are shot you may run a higher risk of them rusting if, like you say, dirt (brake dust) and water is getting in. Using a grit paper would have scored the pin surface. Are you talking about the slide pins or the brake pad securing pins?

I have had it for 4 years - put 40k on it and its at 100k now - I have only topped it up during ownership so I guess it needs doing whatever way you look at it. Would be nice to know how its changed and also what quantity is required. Failing that, its going in for a gearbox oil change and I can also ask the dealer to do the coolant as well, but would really like to knopw how its done.

That's what I have found - and when you add postage to it they are very expensive Just bought 20 from the site Bernie has recommended for £3.99 - will have plenty spare and will let you know how they fit thanks guys !

Perfect - Thanks Bernie 20 for £3.99 - cant complain at that price - beats £25 !! Nice find for the web site as well.

Thanks John - I have these as the part number required so its good to know that someone else has confirmed the part number. Have only found these in the states though but will keep an eye out for UKI availability